by Danielle Finn, Blogging Circle 2
I have to say I should have prepared myself more for this scene. I knew that Prince Hal promised the king that when he became king he would banish all those not fit in the eyes of nobility, but I thought okay we all sometimes say things or agree with our parents to get back in there good graces, especially if we messed up or got into trouble as Hal does do many times in Henry the fourth. However, this is not the case, Henry followed through with this promise, and it was not just to appease his father. He did not want to be looked at by the people of England as unfit and immature. I can sympathize with that it cannot be easy to go from being the prince hanging out in the tavern to the next moment ruling a country. But I will not ever sympathize with leaving behind those who did nothing but befriend you, stepping on other to succeed will never be an option in my eyes. With this being said, in regards to the banishment and the demise of Falstaff, I would just like to say, Daisy was right. King Henry, (the former prince Hal) is evil. King Henry the fifth did not even mention, or even utter a word about a person whom seemed to be one that made an impact on him. This proves that Henry’s promise to his father of banishing all of those of the tavern. I believe highly, the King not mentioning Falstaff again after the banishment scene, says a lot about Henry’s character. It exemplifies his lack of empathy, showing that the friendship between Hal and Falstaff was false. The “friendship” was only used as a means of “turning past evils into advantages” displaying his turn colors. This disgusting display of entitlement just provides more evidence of how the death of Falstaff , killed Prince Hal and gave birth to King Henry; highlighting upon how he is a no good, sad excuse of a person.
Furthermore, I find that the banishment/death of Falstaff intriguing as well. Shakespeare chose not to show the death of Falstaff, there is a quick mention that he dies of a broken heart because of King Henry betrays him ( this was mentioned in class). I agree with most that Shakespeare wanted to show the pure evil of Henry and that his acts before becoming king, embracing those of the tavern as his other family, were to be used as mentioned before to his advantage, he didn’t truly feel anything for those of the tavern (I don’t want to ruin it for those who haven’t read further than supposed to, so I won’t comment any further on that matter.) When Falstaff died, with him died on image of what friendship, loyalty, and honor should be. Even though he is a sad example of how a knight behaves. Falstaff was loyal to Prince Hal; he would never think about banishing Henry or be the cause of his death if the tables were turned. Falstaff would find a way to make sure Hal always had a spot next to him.
Hi Danielle,
This scene definitely was hard for me to read as well. I really enjoyed the budding friendship of Falstaff and Hal, and to see him throw it away due to his lack in status was just hard to see. Hal brings out the better man in him and he should have used that to his advantage not just get rid of him when he gains a title. It really is a shame that Hal followed through with that promise because it did not benefit him or Falstaff. If anything I feel like it hurt Hal’s morals and broke Falstaff’s heart. I wonder if Hal will ever return to that moment in his mind and realize it was a mistake. I hope for Hal’s sake he realizes that he’s wronged a friend that accepted him for him and not because he was the future of the throne.
Danielle,
I’d like to play Devil’s advocate and suggest that Hal’s banishing of Falstaff was a noble act. I don’t think Falstaff’s banishment was a bad act, and I think it’s a necessary move for Prince Hal to show his maturity.
Falstaff *did* do a bit more besides befriend Hal. Falstaff was certainly a bad influence on Hal and had no real place in the court of the King. Remember, when we meet Falstaff he plans a highway robbery with Hal. Falstaff later on recruits a bunch of vagrants and peasants to the army, (reneging on his duties as a sworn knight) and takes claim for killing Hotspur. Hal gives Falstaff credit for killing Hotspur, and Falstaff pledges to change and become a noble person, but we know that in Henry IV part 2 Falstaff makes no change to his character. Falstaff is the antithesis to honor, and represents everything Hal should not be. He is a drunkard that lives off the money of others, and is certainly a bad influence on Hal.
What good act does Falstaff really do for Hal? They are friends, but is Falstaff really someone the prince wants to have around? I think Banishment may have been a bit much, but Falstaff definitely has no place at court, and perhaps Hal felt he needed to send him away to be truly free of his influence. For Henry to really be a legitimate and good king, he must move past his troubled youth and the actors in it that refuse to change for the good of the realm.
For my money, I’d bet that if the choice was between Falstaff and Hal, Falstaff would pick Falstaff every time.
It’s really hard to agree with this, but I completely see how Henry’s evils do outweigh his goodness. I’m definitely a proponent for the “real friendship of Falstaff and Harry”, but sometimes its hard to overlook that I’ve also allowed one performance to sway my perspective. I’ve been watching “The Hollow Crown”, which offers the perspective we all want to believe in: a Henry that does what he does because he has to be king and being king is a burden that excuses no sway in character. But, I can definitely agree that all that Henry is is using his past evils for advantages. I also agree that it seems like the friendship was one sided on Falstaff’s part; Henry might have cared for Falstaff at one point, but Henry easily erased that. Everything Henry talks about (or talks up) is everything Falstaff never could be and we are pushed to feel pity for Falstaff (with all his own misdeeds) after he is pushed away.
Danielle,
While I’ve never been fond of referring to Henry V as someone is is completely and inherently evil, your post made me reconsider the ways in which I have been evaluating him. The fact that you are mainly evaluating him based on his interpersonal relations with others is very interesting. It’s true that how you treat your “friends” says a lot about you as a person, so why should we exclude royalty from this sort of judgement? Harry completely used the people he knew from the tavern to assist him in his rise to power. The way he treated Falstaff and the others shows a complete lack of care for them— is that really the kind of quality a king should have? In this respect, he is completely evil. I really appreciate this reading of Harry.
I completely agree on the note of Falstaff, as I felt horrible because all I could see is a puppy being given back to the shelter after it’s already been adopted. Falstaff is a joke, not a threat, and unfortunately that was not what Prince Hal was thinking. I think Henry’s banishment of Falstaff was much too harsh and certainly put into light for me how Henry is for himself and no one else or better said “every man for himself.” Although, I wouldn’t go so far as to call him evil, I just think his judgement was clouded and he made a somewhat radical decision, because in the end it didn’t really affect England one way or another, and that was really the only thing that King Henry V was focusing on. The well being of the nation of England was the most important thing to Henry, not his friendships or creating relationships for anyone to rely on.
Your post highlights many thoughts I had while reading this scene. What made it worse was Henry’s body language and the fact that he could not even look at Falstaff as if he was all of a sudden beneath him. I would like to agree with everyone else in the sense that Henry was doing what was right for him and for his Kingdom, however, he could have went about this situation a completely different way. He could have found a place for Falstaff in his Kingdom or he could have ended the friendship, but banning him was a bit much. Someone made a comment that Henry was trying to rid himself of Falstaff’s presence completely, but no one should ever have so much power over you that you need them to be gone completely in order for you to be your true self. That says a lot about Henry’s character as a whole because is he as strong as her pretends to be?
I find everything you said about Hal incredibly interesting, and it’s definitely a valid interpretation of his character. He doesn’t seem loyal to Falstaff or anyone from the tavern, even though the tavern is what shaped him as a person/character/king, and he also seems not to have cared about them at all—based on the interpretation we worked with in class of his soliloquy from Henry IV, in which he appears to refer to his tavernmates as “contagious clouds” and worse (1.2.173). I personally would not go so far as to call Hal evil, though, and overall I disagree that he is a terrible character/person at all; I rather like Hal and also respect that he is able to put his past personal life aside (even though banishing Falstaff was tragic) for the betterment of England. His tavernmates, including Falstaff, were not the most moral of folk and would not have been suited at all to companionship with a king. I also definitely agree with what Brian said, that “if the choice was between Falstaff and Hal, Falstaff would pick Falstaff every time.”
I really like the community activity on this blog. The discussion in the comment section is always interesting and enriches the reading experience. For those of you who want to read more, you can visit our website. – 24kbet